L-8 Co-orientational view of argument.pptx

please read it!

1. Co-Orientational View of Argument

2. Perspectives on Argumentation Argumentation is a complex process with many dimensions and for centuries scholars have differed on how it should be described and explained. Some hold the view that arguers have an obligation to determine the truth through the use of true premises (evidence) and sound reasoning. Others argue that the “truth” frequently cannot be decisively determined and that argumentation should be studied as a means of influence in the social and political marketplace. Still others, noting the tension between rational and non-rational factors of influence, have concluded that “a central focus of argumentation is on discovering and applying the general standards for determining what is true or reasonable.”

3. Types of perspectives The three perspectives of argument are: Logical perspective :(It asks, is the argument sound?) Focuses on the structure of an argument and on its logical soundness when removed from the context. Emphasizes the accuracy of the premises ( a  premise  is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument  requires a set of two declarative sentences or "propositions" known as the  premises  or along with another declarative sentence known as the conclusion) and the correctness of the linking and evidence to the claims they support. presumes there are objective, universal standards for evaluating validity/invalidity of arguments arguments are unilateral (one sided), complete & self-contained

4. Dialectical perspective:(Asks- Has the discussion been handled so as to achieve a candid and critical examination of all aspects of the issue in question? The capacity for any given procedure for argument to contribute to reasoned and careful deliberation on an issue. This perspective focuses on and enhances a candid, critical and comprehensive examination of all positions relevant to the topic. views argument as a back and forth, give and take process arguments are multilateral, they evolve, change, and develop over time

5. Rhetorical perspective:(Asks: Has the arguer constructed the argument so as to successfully influence a particular audience?) Emphasizes the arguments effectiveness in persuading its audience. views arguments as being audience-centered arguing is strategic: arguments must be adapted to the listener’s frame of reference standards for evaluating arguments are person-specific, situation dependent

6. Co - orientational View of Argument A co - orientational approach to argument presumes that the relationship between arguer and recipient is as important as the content of the argument.

7. Arguer and audience agree Arguer and audience disagree

8. US constitutional law, debates Over gun control policy CONTEXT OF DISAGREEMENT

9. Summary Claim is above LOD, zone of disagreement Assumption is made by the arguer that evidence is true ,therefore reasoning is provided If evidence is true and reasoning makes sense then claim is true. So claim is in the zone of agreement below LOD BUT What happens if audience does not immediately agree with evidence and evidence is above LOD in zone of disagreement?

10. The idea of argument chain comes in.. This uses a proved argument as evidence for unproved claim. Next provide more evidence below LOD and support with reasoning If audience agrees then LOD rises. Therefore claim is below LOD and audience agrees. Previously disputed evidence is now proven conclusion, now it gets connected with previous reasoning and LOD rises. Relation between C, E and R . Argument depends on logic and persuasion.

11. THANK YOU